Blog Stats

Meta

Archive for the ‘Rod Parsley’ Category

When an expectant mother casts her eyes on an image of the thumb-sucking bairn nestled in her womb, it’s difficult to deny the truth – the bundle in her belly is a living, breathing baby. Knowing this, protectors of the preborn are pushing to make it easier for any woman considering an abortion to first look at an ultrasound picture of the little one whose life depends on her mercy.

According to statistical research, a woman is 80 percent more likely to change her mind about an abortion if she has information that encourages her to reflect on the procedure ahead of time. For this reason, the Center for Moral Clarity supports the Informed Choice Act, H.R. 223, which would authorize the federal secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to nonprofit organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment.

Passing this bill would enable clinics nationwide to provide free examinations to pregnant women – and give them a peek through the window to the womb.

Along with funding grants for purchasing ultrasound equipment, the Informed Choice Act would:

Require clinics to show the visual image of the fetus from the ultrasound examination to each pregnant woman with a general anatomical and physiological description of the fetus;

Give each pregnant woman the approximate age of the embryo or fetus;

Provide information on abortion and alternatives to abortion, such as childbirth and adoption, and information concerning public and private agencies that will assist in those alternatives.

“If we are to regain our equilibrium as a society, if we are to rescue our children from a downward spiral of violence, then we must recover our founding ideals,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “We must resensitize ourselves to the dignity, integrity and sanctity of life by upholding it at every opportunity and in every situation. People matter.”

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in April upholding a federal ban on ghastly partial-birth abortions has invigorated people who love and revere the sanctity of human life. In addition to the Informed Choice Act pending in Congress, a variety of state legislation seeks to include ultrasounds as a prerequisite before a mother could kill her developing offspring.

South Carolina, which is the only state in the nation to recognize a fetus as a person, also could become the only state to require a woman to view an ultrasound before getting an abortion. Several other states are considering laws that would make ultrasounds available but would not make looking at them mandatory.

Of course, as much as the partial-birth ruling has motivated Bible-believing Christians, it has provoked abortion proponents. So it was no surprise that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., wasted no time in reintroducing the Freedom of Choice Act, a measure to put a woman’s right to have an abortion in federal law.

In order to protect and preserve any rights, courageous leaders – in the press, in medicine, in law, in politics and in the church – have always recognized that they had to protect the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Contemporary Christians can do no less.

A decision in two historical cases, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, is expected to be handed down any day as the U. S. Supreme Court approaches the end of its term, which concludes June 30. The central question in these cases – which have been consolidated for one ruling – is whether organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life can air legitimate grassroots lobbying ads during the blackout periods created by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

In 2004, the Wisconsin Right to Life organization ran a television spot encouraging residents to prevent anticipated filibusters of President George W. Bush’s federal judicial nominees by calling Wisconsin U.S. Senators Russell Feingold and Herb Kohl, both Democrats. Timing of the political advertisements raised eyebrows at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because Feingold was up for re-election at the time. So the FEC banned the right-to-life group’s ads in the weeks leading up to the November election.

The McCain-Feingold Act, named after the two senators who sponsored the legislation, regulates contributions to federal candidates in an effort to control the influence of special-interest groups on elections. The act is enforced by the FEC. Specifically, the law prohibits unions and corporations from using corporate money to pay for advocacy advertisements targeted at a specific candidate within the designated blackout period 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

In response to the ad ban, Wisconsin Right to Life sued the FEC, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment by regulating campaign speech. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life in December 2006, stating that it is unconstitutional to prohibit the airing of such ads. The Federal Election Commission and Sen. John McCain, along with other members of Congress, appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the cases April 25, 2007.

Here’s an indication of how Americans feel about restrictions on their free speech: A broad coalition of groups representing a wide spectrum of political ideologies filed briefs supporting Wisconsin Right to Life.

The Center for Moral Clarity concurs that the McCain-Feingold law’s “electioneering communication” prohibition should not be applied to grassroots lobbying. Such a limitation stifles citizens’ constitutional right to petition the government. The right to communicate with elected officials should not be suspended during election season.

The nine justices on the nation’s highest court have an opportunity to uphold the First Amendment, which gives citizen organizations a right to participate in self-government by asking other citizens to petition their members of Congress regarding upcoming legislative action. Christian activists are praying that they will do so.

A high-five is in order for ethical scientists who continue to identify ways of advancing stem-cell research without destroying human embryos. The latest breakthrough was announced last week – ironically, on the same day that Congress voted to increase taxpayers’ funding for experiments on embryonic stem cells. Hold that thought!

There’s no reason to destroy any more human embryos in the quest to find cures that will save or improve lives. Scientists in Japan and the United States have now found a way to reprogram skin cells back to an embryonic state.

Although the experiments have involved only mice so far, this discovery could end the controversy that has caused Christians consternation over biomedical research for nearly a decade. In 1998, scientists first discovered how to generate human embryonic stem cells from embryos discarded by fertility clinics. Immediately, men and women who respect the sanctity of all human life objected to callously ending it in a laboratory petri dish.

Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research – mounted primarily by Christian activists – has served as a catalyst to the search for alternatives. If skin cells can mimic embryonic stem cells and perform the same function, there would be no need to continue down the dangerous, destructive path now tempting medical pioneers.

This development should sway people critical of President Bush’s promise to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which Congress has sent to the White House for the president’s signature.

People who don’t place value on the developmental stage of life that occurs before birth have argued that protecting embryos from scientific experimentation is tantamount to denying life-saving therapy to the sick and dying. Yet, even the most passionate voices in the scientific community acknowledge that human embryonic stem-cell research is a long way from producing any practical therapies.

The American Legion, which has a membership of 2.7 million wartime veterans, joined forces this month with two legal groups in a campaign to defend religious symbols on veterans’ memorials. This is a Christian nation; and it will continue to be one unless people of faith relinquish the guarantees bestowed by the U.S. Constitution.

The brave men and women of the military who defend this nation deserve to have their faith in God expressed on the monuments erected in their honor. Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union and other secular organizations disagree; and they are challenging the placement of crosses at memorials in San Diego and the Mojave Desert.

If atheists use the courts to remove crosses from memorials, how long will it be before religious symbols are barred from military cemeteries? A soldier’s final reward should not be encumbered by restrictions on one of the most important freedoms that he – or she – helped to preserve.

“This nation is becoming a place where atheists and the organizations they run are prepared to challenge almost every expression of our Christian heritage,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “These groups scan the national landscape looking for opportunities to file lawsuits in the name of ‘separation of church and state.’ The focus of these suits ranges from stopping prayers at school sporting events, to having Christian symbols removed from city seals, to keeping nativity scenes off public property at Christmas, to having “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.”

The controversy involves the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego. Erected in 1954 on city property, the cross is part of a Korean War memorial. In 1989, an individual backed by the civil-liberties group sued, claiming the symbol was an unconstitutional establishment of the Christian faith. Additionally, a court challenge by the ACLU forced officials to board up a cross at a Mojave Desert war memorial erected in 1934.

Clearly, the secularization of America is well underway. Thankfully, there are patriotic groups, such as the American Legion, that understand how drastically different America would be without its religious roots. To the American Legion’s credit, the national commander says they won’t stop with crosses; the veterans also intend to defend other religious symbols placed at memorials.

The American Legion is a strong supporter of the Public Expression of Religion Act – H.R. 725, which would put an end to such frivolous lawsuits. The Center for Moral Clarity also advocates passing this legislation.

The library. The Boys and Girls Club. Planned Parenthood. What do these three entities have in common? They all were places children in a Manchester, N.H., YMCA program for at-risk middle-school students visited last week as part of a field trip to social service agencies in the city. Visiting an abortion mill is hardly an appropriate outing for middle-school children, particularly those who probably come from a fractured home life and are more susceptible to getting pregnant before marriage.

The counselor who spoke to the students said she did not mention abortion, but she probably didn’t mention abstinence, either. Nevertheless, New Hampshire Right to Life is asking for equal face time. Advocates for life should have had the opportunity to talk to the kids, and it’s troubling that the pro-life perspective is only now being considered as an after thought.

With all of the social service organizations in Manchester, why would the school district allow the YMCA to take a group of adolescents to Planned Parenthood as a school-sanctioned activity? Understandably, the field trip has caused quite a stir in Manchester.

Early Tuesday morning, the city school board voted for an investigation into last week’s field trip. School authorities were correct to call for the probe. When the investigation is completed, steps must be taken to make sure other programs that “help” youngsters don’t repeat the YMCA’s missteps.

It’s worth noting that the trip to Planned Parenthood doesn’t seem compatible with the YMCA’s mission. Keep in mind, YMCA is an acronym for Young Men’s Christian Association; and the organization claims” to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.”

Abstinence is an important Christian principle, one that would serve at-risk youth better in the long run than an endless supply of condoms. Last year, New Hampshire was among the states where the General Assembly killed a parental notification bill. Thanks to the state legislature, parents no longer have to give permission for this kind of visit.